Case 3272285

Cannon Kirk House, 64-66 Stuart Street, Luton, LU1 2SW

Luton Borough Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
17 August 2021
Authority
Luton Borough Council
Inspector
Smith A
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr Reshad Khodabux (Next Step Support)
LPA reference
21/00022/PAUPTC
ONS LPA code
E06000032
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
3 June 2021

Summary AI

The appeal against the refusal to grant approval for a four-storey building in Luton was dismissed due to the building's current use as residential apartments, not a mixed-use capacity.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Cannon Kirk House, 64-66 Stuart Street, Luton, LU1 2SW — Luton Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 2 August 2021 by Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 August 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/B0230/W/21/3272285 64-66 Stuart Street, Luton LU1 2SW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AB of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr Reshad Khodabux on behalf of Next Step Support against the decision of Luton Borough Council. • The application Ref 21/00022/PAUPTC, dated 6 January 2021, was refused by notice dated 23 March 2021. • The development proposed is construction of one additional floor (fourth floor) to provide four studio flats. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. As the application form that is before me does not contain a declaration date or site address, I have used (in the banner heading above) the date of the application and the address as given on the appeal form. Indeed, I have no reason to consider these details to be incorrect. Main Issue 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Cannon Kirk House, 64-66 Stuart Street, Luton, LU1 2SW — Luton Borough Council — Appeal Decision The main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AB of the GPDO. Reasons 4. Part 20 refers to the construction of new dwellinghouses whilst Class AB relates specifically to new dwellinghouses on terrace buildings in commercial or mixed use. The permitted development right for works above the topmost storey of a terrace building will apply (as indicated under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph AB) when the building is used in a mixed-use capacity combining either two or more specified commercial uses or a use falling within Use Class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with one or more of the aforementioned specified commercial uses. 5. The site’s planning history highlights that prior approval was first granted in 2018 under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O of the GPDO with respect to proposals to change the use of the appeal building from offices to residential apartments. Whilst formerly used as offices, the building is now solely comprised of residential apartments. This is consistent with my own observations upon external inspection, whilst a list of the 15 flats contained within the existing https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Cannon Kirk House, 64-66 Stuart Street, Luton, LU1 2SW — Luton Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/B0230/W/21/3272285 building appears as an appendix to the appellant’s Planning Statement (January 2021). I thus find that the appeal building is not used in either a commercial or mixed-use capacity. Thus, the proposal cannot be considered to constitute permitted development under the terms of Class AB. 6. Various circumstances where development is not permitted under Class AB are set out under paragraph AB.1 of the GPDO. I have no reason to consider that the proposal would fail to comply with any particular provision of paragraph AB.1. However, due to the appeal building’s current use, and in accordance with my above reasoning, the proposal does not represent permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AB of the GPDO. Other Matters 7. The provisions of paragraph AB.2 of the GPDO require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development based on several different matters. However, this is only necessary where development is permitted. This is not the case here. It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider the merits of the proposal based on these matters. Conclusion 8. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Andrew Smith

Cannon Kirk House, 64-66 Stuart Street, Luton, LU1 2SW — Luton Borough Council — Andrew Smith INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶4

The building is used solely for residential apartments, not in a mixed-use capacity, so the proposal does not constitute permitted development under Class AB.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶5

The building's planning history and current use are consistent with residential apartments, not a commercial or mixed-use capacity.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶6

The proposal cannot be considered to constitute permitted development under Class AB due to the building's current use.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
GPDO 20
Determinative
GPDO 20, Class AB
Determinative
GPDO 2
Limited

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 17 August 2021 under the Open Government Licence.